270
THE SAXONS IN ENGLAND.
[book i.
wert made prisoner1;” and this principle was re-
cognized even in the later legislation, after what
we may call a legal commutation of this right had
been established : the ordinance respecting oaths
to be administered says, “ A twelfhynde man’s
oath stands for six ceorls’ oaths ; because if a man
should avenge a twelfhynde man, he will be fully
avenged on six ceorls, and his wergyld will be six
ceorls’ wergylds2.” The Teutonic nations generally
avoided the inconveniences of such a system by
making the State itself the arbitrator between the
parties ; that is, by establishing a tariff at which in-
juries should be rated, and committing to the State
the duty of compelling the injured person to receive,
and the wrongdoer to pay, the settled amount. It
thus engaged to act as a mediator between the
conflicting interests, with a view to the maintenance
of the general peace : it assured to the sufferer the
legal satisfaction for his loss ; it engaged to his
adversary that, upon due payment of that legal
satisfaction, he should be placed under the public
guarantee and saved from all the consequences of
feud. For doing this, the State claimed also some
remuneration ; it imposed a fine, called sometimes
fredum, from fri⅞>, peace, or bannum from its pro-
clamation (bannan)3, over and above the compen-
ɪ Beda, Hist. Eccl. iv. 22.
2 "Twclfhyndes mannes aft forstent syx ceorla aft ; foɪftdm gif man
Sonetwelfhyndan man wrecan sceolde, he hɪft full wrecen on syx Oeor-
lum, and his wergyld bift syx eeoɪla wergyld.” Oaths, § 12. Thorpe,
i. 182.
3 Thetechnical term is, to set vp the king's jnotection, “cyninges
munde iféran.” Eddw. and Guft. § 13. Eddm. ii. § 7. Thorpe, i. 174
CH. X∙]
f√e,hde. WERGYLD.
271
sation between man and man. And this is obvi-
ously what Tacitus means when he says1, “They are
bound to take up both the enmities and the friend-
ships of a father or relative. Nor are their enmi-
ties implacable ; for even homicide is atoned for by
a settled number of flocks or cattle, and the whole
house receives satisfaction,—a useful thing for the
state, for feuds are dangerous in exact proportion
to freedom.” And again, “ A portion of the fine
goes to the king or state, a part to him whose da-
mages are to be assessed, or to his relatives.” Only
where the State would not, or could not, as may
sometimes have happened, undertake this duty, did
the right of private warfare again resume its course,
and the family relations recover their pristine im-
portance. The man who presumes to fight, before
he has in vain appealed to all the recognized au-
thorities for redress, is liable, under Ælfred’s law,
to severe punishment, except in one important
case, which involved the maintenance of the family
itself, to secure which alone the machinery of the
State exists2. But where the offender refuses to
2δO. This is the engagement of the State that the arbitrament shall
be peaceably made, and it at once abrogates all right of feud, and fear
of violent revenge.
ɪ “ Suscipere tarn inimicitias seu patris seu propinqui quam amici-
tias necesse est. Nec implacabiles durant ; Iuitur enim etiam homici-
dium certo armentorum ас pecorum numéro, recipitque Satisfactionem
Universa domus : utiliter in publicum ; quia periculosiores sunt inimi-
citiae iuxta Iibertatem.” Germ. xxii. “ Sed et Ievioribus delictiβ [in-
cluding homicide] pro modo poenarum equorum pecorumque numéro
convicti multantur. Pars multae régi vel civitati, pars ipsi qui vindi-
catur, vel propinquis eius exsolvitur.” Ibid. xii.
2 The Saxon law says, in accordance with the universal law of na-
ture and society, “ A. man may fight, without incurring the penalty of